Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!svo.UUCP!ks From: ks@svo.UUCP Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Gateway to AT&T Mail Message-ID: <9400002@svo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jul-86 01:38:00 EDT Article-I.D.: svo.9400002 Posted: Tue Jul 8 01:38:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 07:40:28 EDT References: <320@proper.UUCP> Lines: 25 Nf-ID: #R:proper.UUCP:320:svo.UUCP:9400002:000:1071 Nf-From: svo.UUCP!ks Jul 8 00:38:00 1986 Well, it appears that just about every AT&T IS-owned machine is connected with the 'attmail' service, as are several non-AT&T machines. You might do well to look for 'attmail' in the UUCP map data. But, one might ask "what's the cost"? Someone is footing the bill for attmail, and I strongly suspect it is the connecting site. While this might not really be a problem for AT&T sites (they *do* pay--albeit in-house-- for the services they use, by the way), commercial gateways to attmail will have to pay for services used by foreign hosts. I suppose one might class this under the Usenet philosophy of "carrying one's own share of the network [financial] load." I know I do. But I'm curious if anyone has a really strong aversion to gatewaying traffic to attmail. (Traffic *from* attmail is "free" to the receiving site, though.) I suppose one must use "sophisticated" mailers such as MMDF II to inhibit this sort of flow. Anyone want to take on this one? Kurt F. Sauer Tulsa, Oklahoma Internet: UUCP: